%META:TOPICINFO{author="PaulKlemick" date="1189063060" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="PolishArtilces"}%

-- PaulKlemick - 06 Sep 2007

Magistrate's Court, Outram

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1903

(Before E. H. Carew, S.M.)

Procuring Liquor for a Prohibited Person.- Joseph Kreft, of Allanton, was charge with this offence: pleaded guilty, but afterwards not guilty. Constable Carmody stated that on the 12th inst., at about 4 p.m., he met the accused and Arthur Ede near Outram; they were in a trap and accused was driving. Witness was riding a bicycle towards Allanton when he met them. After they passed him a little way he followed them, keeping out of their sight. They pulled up in front of Mr. Niell's store. Kreft went in the store and after a while came out and stood by the cart for a little while; then went into Mr. O'Keeffe's Hotel, where he stayed for a short time, and then came out, got in the cart, and drove back towards Allanton. From what witness learned in the hotel he followed them, and about half-a-mile on the road saw Ede leaning back evidently having a drink out of a bottle. Soon after he rode up and accused Kreft of getting beer for Ede. Kreft replied that he did not. Witness said, "What's the use of you telling me lies. You just got a bottle of beer." Kreft asserted that he did not. All the beer he got he had drunk himself. Witness got in the cart and found a bottle containing some beer in the trap rolled up in a sack. He said, "Now what was the use of you telling lies, here is the beer?" He replied that he never gave Ede any of the beer; what was out of the bottle he had drunk himself. A prohibition order was in existence against Ede since December last; but it did not seem to do much good. Unprincipled persons got Ede liquor if he found the money. Then they got a share of the liquor. And the same people who got this liquor for him knew that his wife and family were in need of the money thus spent.

Alfred H. O'Keeffe gave evidence that accused called at his hotel on the 12th, had a long beer, and got 6d worth in a bottle. On being shown a bottle about three parts full said that he gave better measure that that. He filled the bottle that he gave accused.

The accused, who appeared to be a bit confused, gave evidence. Said that he had a glass of beer at the hotel, and got a bottle of beer, but did not give Ede any.

To Constable Carmody: Knew Ede was fond of liquor and that he was prohibited. Got the bottle of beer for himself, not for Ede. Had a drink out of the bottle soon after he left Outram; did not offer his mate a drink. Why he wanted a drink so soon after having the long beer was because it was good beer. Knew there was a hotel at Allanton, but liked the Outram beer. Thought he had not taken so much out of the bottle. There was more in it when the constable took it, and he may have drunk some of it.

The Magistrate asked accused if he called Ede, and he replied no.

His Worship said that he did not believe accused statement. It was quite clear that he got the beer for a prohibited person, which was a very wrong thing to do. He would be fined £2 and costs (9s), and if there were more convictions in similar charges the penalty would be much more severe. "The Taieri Advocate", 25 November 1903.